A new iPhone feature represents a threat to pollsters

Merican mobile phone users are flooded with people who call spam. Hiya, a Seattle-based call monitoring service, estimates that consumers received 26.3 billion automatic calls in 2018, 46% more than the 18,000 million from the previous year. Phone manufacturers have taken note of their customers' problems. In its latest software version, Apple has made it possible for iPhone users to automatically send all callers unknown to voicemail. Although the function will certainly be useful for the millions of customers whose peaceful dinners are ruined by fake calls, it could be disastrous for the faltering public survey industry.
The challenges facing telephone pollsters have been growing. Telephone surveys have become very expensive, as the number of Americans willing to answer unexpected or unknown calls has declined. In the mid to late twentieth century, response rates were as high as 70%, according to SSRS, a market research and survey firm. But the Pew Research Center estimates that it received full interviews of only 6% of people who tried to survey in 2018. Although surveys with low response rates may still be accurate, their costs increase dramatically since pollsters spend more time and money calling more people. According to the American Association for Public Opinion Research, a traditional high-quality survey of 1,000 Americans costs approximately $ 48,000.
Apple's new call blocking feature could bring costs and response rates to more dangerous territory. Robert Griffin, director of research at the Voters Study Group of the Democracy Fund, a group of public opinion researchers, says the software poses an "existential problem." With call blocking, the barrier to conducting good surveys changes "from people who do not answer their phones to people who do not even receive the call." Analysts do not even know precisely how the new technology will affect the industry, but with the response rates that are already falling sharply, what is reserved for pollsters cannot be good.
Griffin does everything possible to see a positive side. The challenges of public opinion polling by telephone could encourage researchers to adopt newer and more innovative methods, including online surveys. They are cheaper and faster than telephone surveys, and provide a better framework for studying the attitudes and behavior of Americans. Surveys conducted through the Internet allow researchers to control the same people over time, a method that allows pollsters to conduct what they call "panel" surveys, to measure actual changes in opinions and focus on Smaller sectors of the population. Both practices are almost inaccessible to everyone, except for better-funded telephone pollsters.
The future of the surveys has not yet been determined. "It's worth being agile," says Griffin. Online surveys are based on complex statistical adjustments called "weighting" to ensure that the demographics of your respondents match the general portrait of Americans. At present, this strategy is working, but only because the political behavior of Americans is closely related to their demographic. African Americans and whites differ in what they want as president, as do voters with and without college degrees. Changes in those correspondences may surprise pollsters off guard. Researchers at the University of New Hampshire neglected to consider education when weighing their surveys for the 2016 presidential elections, not counting the graduates. They predicted that Hillary Clinton would defeat Donald Trump in the state by 11 percentage points. In the end, he won by 0.
"The truth is that surveying people is difficult," says Griffin, "and any individual solution will probably be inadequate." The only way to prepare the future of the public survey industry is to constantly experiment with new technologies. Many organizations are doing exactly that. Due to the speed of technological change, those who are not soon will be forced to do the same, or close their doors.

Introducing "Checks and Balance", our podcast on US policy. UU. And the elections

I am fascinated with American political history and have been investigating our archives a bit in the period before the launch of a new podcast. The Economist's first main story about an election in the United States appeared on Saturday, November 30, 1844. The newspaper expressed "a pleasant surprise" at the victory of the "US free trade president" James Polk. The presidential elections of 2020 will be 45, but this will be the first with its own dedicated podcast, "Checks and Balance," which we launched on January 24.
A presidential election is a long and transparent process to choose the most powerful person in the world. This election promises to be one of the most absorbent and consistent in recent memory. Some 139 million Americans participated last time, but that still leaves 98% of the world's population nervously looking to discover what American voters reserve for them. The Economist team of writers in the United States and abroad will explain what is happening in the United States and why it is so important in other places. We are stubborn and sometimes thorny, but our views are always based on rigorous reports.

Every week, I will speak with Charlotte Howard, head of the office and editor of energy and commodities at The Economist in New York, and with Jon Fasman, our correspondent in Washington, to give you a global vision of democracy in the United States. We are aware that there are already as many podcasts of American politics as there are delegates available for Super Tuesday, so we will not waste your time with useless horse racing things.
Instead, we will take a single issue that shapes the United States and the elections. The first episode analyzes the practical consequences of the foreign policy of America of President Donald Trump. Some others we are working on: are they becoming the most socialist socialists? Why is the United States the only rich country with a drop in life expectancy? And what happens to the minds of the voters when they cast their vote?
We will show the experience and reports of The Economist correspondents throughout the United States and beyond. Each episode will present informed packages and historical pieces that will see the people, data and history that make up the contest, along with the discussion of our panelists.
The Economist has been providing a word in his ear since the heyday of the iPod, when Apple loaded our podcasts on the demonstration devices in its stores. The "Checks and Balance" reports will appear in our other programs, including "The Intelligence" (our daily podcast), "The Economist Asks" and "Money Talks". We will bring a well-informed and equitable perspective on American politics. This is how our motto came up: "If you want a podcast that has a view but does not take sides, listen to Checks and Balance."
The podcast "Checks and balance" will be published together with an electronic newsletter of the same name, which includes an introduction of mine and a selection of correspondent stories from across the country. The "Checks and balance" newsletter will also include an analysis only for subscribers of the latest surveys of data journalists from The Economist.
We hope to provide a rewarding and entertaining listening while we go through the noise to understand the trends and important developments, and surprises, of this election year. Is the result as surprising or pleasant as it was in 1844? The voters will decide.
John Prideaux is the editor of The Economist in the USA. UU.
Subscribe to the “Checks and Balance” podcast on Apple, Spotify, Acast or your preferred podcast application. The trailer and the first episode are available here.